Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pippin-Prep - External or Internal markers?

    Hi Seqanswers community,

    I going to test size selection step in Pippin-Prep and I´m not sure about the advantages and disadvantages to use the external or internal markers.

    I going to use a 2% dye-free Pippin-Prep cassete gel to select two different ranges, 200-250 and 400-450 bp. The marker options for my experiment are Marker L (internal standards) or Marker K (external standards).

    I have already performed a test using the external Marker K to select the above mentioned ranges and using the 'Range Program Mode'. However, the product size recovered was smaller than selected (around 150 bp for the 200-250 range and around 350 for the range 400-450). I guess if I use a internal instead external marker I can improve accuracy, but I afraid that I can collect a marker fragment togheter with the recovered product.

    Thank you.

  • #2
    Originally posted by emarsola10 View Post
    Hi Seqanswers community,

    I going to test size selection step in Pippin-Prep and I´m not sure about the advantages and disadvantages to use the external or internal markers.

    I going to use a 2% dye-free Pippin-Prep cassete gel to select two different ranges, 200-250 and 400-450 bp. The marker options for my experiment are Marker L (internal standards) or Marker K (external standards).

    I have already performed a test using the external Marker K to select the above mentioned ranges and using the 'Range Program Mode'. However, the product size recovered was smaller than selected (around 150 bp for the 200-250 range and around 350 for the range 400-450). I guess if I use a internal instead external marker I can improve accuracy, but I afraid that I can collect a marker fragment togheter with the recovered product.

    Thank you.
    I have used the Blue Pippin to isolate fragments in the 175-250bp range using Dye-Free cassette BDF2010 (2%) with internal standard V1 and it has worked very reliably. The internal standards are very small so they do not co-migrate with your 200bp fragments.

    You said you tested using Marker K as an external standard. Looking at the Pippin Cassette Reference Chart it lists Marker K as an internal standard meant for the 1.5% cassette. The external standard designated for 2% cassettes is Marker E. That may explain the discrepancy in the fragment sizes recovered.

    Comment


    • #3
      The internal standards have shorter fragment lengths; they will not be eluted with your sample. With internal standards you can run 5 samples per cassette. We have not noticed any principal differences in accuracy.

      Comment


      • #4
        Pippin-Prep - External or Internal markers?

        Thank you for reply.
        I used the external marker E (CEF 2010) and not K, as I said before.

        I think that people from SAGE assistance has found the problem. Checking the log files of our run they found a hump in the curves of the current profile for all lanes, whereas the expected curve must be flat. They gave the following tip: "This ‘hump’ typically indicates that the input sample contains excess salt (>80mM ionic strength). High salt causes an altered migration, and can cause inaccurate sizing. I would suggest performing a purification step to remove excess salt before loading future samples on the Pippin Prep.". This makes sense because we entered with a concentrate PCR product in the gel.

        Comment

        Latest Articles

        Collapse

        • seqadmin
          Best Practices for Single-Cell Sequencing Analysis
          by seqadmin



          While isolating and preparing single cells for sequencing was historically the bottleneck, recent technological advancements have shifted the challenge to data analysis. This highlights the rapidly evolving nature of single-cell sequencing. The inherent complexity of single-cell analysis has intensified with the surge in data volume and the incorporation of diverse and more complex datasets. This article explores the challenges in analysis, examines common pitfalls, offers...
          06-06-2024, 07:15 AM
        • seqadmin
          Latest Developments in Precision Medicine
          by seqadmin



          Technological advances have led to drastic improvements in the field of precision medicine, enabling more personalized approaches to treatment. This article explores four leading groups that are overcoming many of the challenges of genomic profiling and precision medicine through their innovative platforms and technologies.

          Somatic Genomics
          “We have such a tremendous amount of genetic diversity that exists within each of us, and not just between us as individuals,”...
          05-24-2024, 01:16 PM

        ad_right_rmr

        Collapse

        News

        Collapse

        Topics Statistics Last Post
        Started by seqadmin, Yesterday, 06:58 AM
        0 responses
        13 views
        0 likes
        Last Post seqadmin  
        Started by seqadmin, 06-06-2024, 08:18 AM
        0 responses
        20 views
        0 likes
        Last Post seqadmin  
        Started by seqadmin, 06-06-2024, 08:04 AM
        0 responses
        18 views
        0 likes
        Last Post seqadmin  
        Started by seqadmin, 06-03-2024, 06:55 AM
        0 responses
        13 views
        0 likes
        Last Post seqadmin  
        Working...
        X